And yet thousands of rockets are still fired by hamas. As I said before, if all those rockets only make up 10% of their activities I'd expect the other 90% to actually involve improving gaza. Which clearly hasnt happened.
So apparently you know better than one of the most influentual organisations in America, with millions of dollars at their disposal to do research into this kind of thing.
Which has nothing to do with anything.
I couldn't agree more.
So now can you please explain why you thought it was relevant to bring up in the first place?
If they did that then hamas would be sprouting propaganda saying they defeated israel so it is obviously out of the question. And besides, the UN has called for hamas to stop firing rockets and they havent.
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter1.shtml
All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
Or to put it in plain(er) english : By signing this document you agree that you are legally bound under international law to respect the borders of other nations, and that you will not use force or threaten to use force to undermine the existence of those nations.
Really out of the question, hey?
Perhaps on paper, but in the real world things are more complicated as I said above.
So now you actually admit the possibility of something you denied two sentences earlier?
And whether or not something is "complicated" is irrelevant. You tried to justify Israel's actions on the premise that it is acceptable to aquire terrory through warfare. The very existence of the UN runs counter to that principle, and Israel as a member of the UN and a signatory of the UN charter has agreed to conduct itself in a manner in keeping with the aims of the charter, including the idea that it is unacceptable to grab land. Your argument failed. Accept that you are wrong.
Regardless, they were allied to israels enemies.
Source?
Because they know their outdated army would crushed in a matter of days by south korea and her allies. Which is what the palestinians would be wise to remember.
Lol. 20% of North Korea's population is part of the NK army, and it even causes the US to balk at the idea of invading the country. But even if that weren't the case, then why doesn't South Korea attack North Korea for having troops on the border?
An example of one such country would be helpful.
Why bother? You'll probably just claim scepticism at the source and ignore the example anyway.
Sign up with Google